Jump to content

second ave question...(T)


blkfire765

Recommended Posts

I am in favor of the (N)(Q) 'switching' terminals for that very reason. I mean it seems odd the (Q) would be a line that doesn't go to (Q)ueens.

As for the LIRR, I really don't think it needs to go further down Manhattan. Riders should just take the subway to get to their intended destinations. If anything the lower level tunnels should be for the express if they should ever have the funds to build it. I'm not sure if the TBMs are too wide to have all 4 tracks on the same level under 2nd av.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


So I guess if the (Q) were to go to Queens then the (Q) would have to become local in Manhattan while the (N) becomes express then. Personally, I feel that there should be two expresses and a local over the current pattern but either way the (W) will have to be brought back so there can be dual services going to Astoria.

 

Besides, the (N) has no historical merit to Astoria anyway since a whole plethora of lines served Astoria, such as the Yellow (B), the (R) (until 1987), the (W), and now the (Q), so there shouldn't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the (T) on second av ever does start up what will its yard be? ive seen bell mouths on the (F) after 63rd st-Lexington Ave. will the (T) connect with the jamaica yard or how will it get and store its trains? Will it get its own yard? sorry if this thread already exists or if it causes problems or inconvinces. just wanted to know B) thanks!

I'm taking a guess here but I see the proposed (T) as a subset of the (Q), using the same fleet and being serviced as (Q)s. The inspection barn would be at C.I.. in the beginning. Of course the (N) and (Q) may swap northern terminals but the setup would probably remain the same. Keeping a combined fleet of (Q)s and (T)s and one barn makes it easier for all concerned rather than adding it to Jamaica yards clutter and shortage of inspection barn space. It also makes it easier on all parties to keep the (T) line as a BMT line for the first few phases of SAS operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only gripe with the (Q)-is-always-Broadway-express mentality is the fact that it's local half way. I think there should be an obvious option available to people who actually want to travel a long distance quickly. If I'm going from Coney Island to Queensboro Plaza (which I do frequently), I shouldn't have to figure out whether the (N) or the (Q) will get me there first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only gripe with the (Q)-is-always-Broadway-express mentality is the fact that it's local half way. I think there should be an obvious option available to people who actually want to travel a long distance quickly. If I'm going from Coney Island to Queensboro Plaza (which I do frequently), I shouldn't have to figure out whether the (N) or the (Q) will get me there first.

 

You can either transfer at Canal Street or use TripPlanner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can either transfer at Canal Street or use TripPlanner.

Transferring adds to the problem. I can expect the next train to be anywhere from 1 to 10 minutes away—and it's not guaranteed to be the train I want. Having an express remain express from point A to point B is a reasonable assurance that I'm likely to get to my destination faster. Transferring makes it likely that my time saved already is wasted.

 

I also went ahead and looked at MTA's official numbers—which are not to be trusted anyhow given the terrible on-time performance highlighted here: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/07/26/before-the-service-cuts-ridership-on-the-rise/. I can only conclude that the on-time performance is even worse now since the new delay-prone service patterns came into effect. Take these numbers with a grain of salt:

  • (N) 4 Avenue express, via Manhattan Bridge, Broadway local: about 1 hour and 3 minutes to 5 minutes

  • (Q) Brighton local, via Manhattan Bridge, Broadway express (stops at 49 Street): about 1 hour and 6 minutes

  • (N) Canal Street to 57 Street as Broadway express (skips 49 Street): 11 to 15 minutes

  • (Q) Canal Street to 57 Street as Broadway express (skips 49 Street): 10 minutes

  • (N) Canal Street to 57 Street as Broadway local: 13 to 15 minutes

  • (N) Canal Street to Queensboro Plaza as Broadway local: from 21 to 25 minutes

  • (Q) Canal Street to Queensboro Plaza as Broadway express (stops at 49 Street): from 21 to 24 minutes

  • (N) Coney Island to Canal Street as 4 Avenue express via Manhattan Bridge: 40 minutes (A skilled train operator can shave this down to 35 minutes, and others might raise this to 50 minutes)

  • (Q) Coney Island to Canal Street as Brighton local via Manhattan Bridge: 43 minutes (I haven't ridden this train as much due to the fact that it takes longer, but I can say that an (N) that leaves the Coney Island terminal 4 to 6 minutes later than a (Q) is likely to encounter that same train dwelling at DeKalb Avenue.)

 

…and even these numbers themselves seem to be in conflict with each other! They are highlighted in red.

 

Can anyone honestly say these numbers agree with real experience?

 

EDIT: Let's get back on topic; start another thread if you want to discuss this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comments in red.

 

Ugh, not the comments in red again. You guys aren't teachers...can't people just quote?

 

So you want to design the SAS to alleviate Lexington Avenue and the trains are going to be shorter than Lexington Avenue? BAD Idea. What about stations at 72nd and points North, how's the (Q) gonna fit?

 

Extending it south is not feasible either. Relay tracks get too close to the through train tracks to extend the platform.

 

EVERYBODY is always "clamoring for more service" that doesn't mean those areas NEED more service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally, there was speculation that the IND was supposed to connect Hudson Terminal and Court Street, though I've always believed that the IND plan was to terminate local trains in Manhattan and in Brooklyn, sending only express trains through Cranberry Street.

 

Now it seems there is speculation that the (T) could be extended to Brooklyn by connecting Hanover Square and Court Street and reactivating Court Street.

 

Not sure what the thinking is unless it's to have all (A)'s to Far Rockaway, (C) to Lefferts Boulevard and run the (T) express between Hoyt-Schmerhorn Streets and Euclid Avenue which would give Fulton Street a Second Avenue and an Eighth Avenue option and give the (A) one southern terminal.

 

There is NO speculation that will ever happen. The 4 phases of SAS do not include any of these ridiculous provisions. That is simply people's "brilliant ideas" again which are posted as stupid opinions, and then later misunderstood to be fact, or at minimum "rumor". They are NEITHER.

 

That plan dates all the way to the 1930's, why are people reviving the same OLD ideas over and over and over and over again? The level of foaminess continues to grow with every fantasy map and "hey I got a great idea" thread here. You think if a bunch of 16 year old kids could figure it out it wouldn't BE the plan? But a lot here seem to think just that.

 

Seems a lot of people here just like to piss into the wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it would be limited to 8-car trains. Not adequate for the UES and you'll be further clogging up the (L) line. Leave the (L) as is.

 

The (L) also has no additional capacity to run more trains, and that also means an issue on the (L) (happens a lot) would f**k up the whole SAS corridor too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only gripe with the (Q)-is-always-Broadway-express mentality is the fact that it's local half way. I think there should be an obvious option available to people who actually want to travel a long distance quickly. If I'm going from Coney Island to Queensboro Plaza (which I do frequently), I shouldn't have to figure out whether the (N) or the (Q) will get me there first.

 

If it is running express in Brooklyn, the (N) is faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical question: what's the point of that relay track at Chambers? Can't they just send a train back north from the current s/b express track to return back north? I mean was service that frequent that they had to relay the (Mx) back to the n/b express track to make room for the next train?

 

*Talking about the midday hours when the (Mx) didn't go all the way to Bay Pkwy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical question: what's the point of that relay track at Chambers? Can't they just send a train back north from the current s/b express track to return back north? I mean was service that frequent that they had to relay the (Mx) back to the n/b express track to make room for the next train?

 

*Talking about the midday hours when the (Mx) didn't go all the way to Bay Pkwy.

 

yea but that was a lead to the bklyn bridge that was never built so they just tured it in to a relay track...did you ever notice that the ceiling at Chambers St. is really high???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the (T) on second av ever does start up what will its yard be? ive seen bell mouths on the (F) after 63rd st-Lexington Ave. will the (T) connect with the jamaica yard or how will it get and store its trains? Will it get its own yard? sorry if this thread already exists or if it causes problems or inconvinces. just wanted to know B) thanks!

 

WAAY too early to speculate. The funding for the 2nd Ave line below 63rd street hasn't even been allocated yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is NO speculation that will ever happen. The 4 phases of SAS do not include any of these ridiculous provisions. That is simply people's "brilliant ideas" again which are posted as stupid opinions, and then later misunderstood to be fact, or at minimum "rumor". They are NEITHER.

 

That plan dates all the way to the 1930's, why are people reviving the same OLD ideas over and over and over and over again? The level of foaminess continues to grow with every fantasy map and "hey I got a great idea" thread here. You think if a bunch of 16 year old kids could figure it out it wouldn't BE the plan? But a lot here seem to think just that.

 

Seems a lot of people here just like to piss into the wind.

The (MTA)'s current plan for the SAS focus exclusively on Manhattan. No denying that. But much like how the Queens Boulevard IND line has turnouts for branches that will more than likely never get built, the SAS line should also have turnouts for expansion into the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Harlem. Clearly, there is not enough money to build the whole SAS (is there ever?), but if the (MTA) one day finds itself able to expand the SAS out of Manhattan's East Side, it should be able to have "jump-off points" where it can do that. The 63rd Street tunnel already has two such points. One is in Queens where the (F) turns off to join the QBL and the other is at Second Avenue to allow for a Queens-Second Avenue service (which would be a very long-awaited replacement for the Second Avenue El service that ran via the 59th Street Bridge until 1942). But my point is, the SAS must be built with expansion to the rest of the City in mind. No one at the (MTA) has to know exactly what path the SAS will take when they build those turnouts, the point is to have them there so the line can be easily expanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (MTA)'s current plan for the SAS focus exclusively on Manhattan. No denying that. But much like the Queens Boulevard IND line has turnouts for branches that will more than likely never get built, the SAS line should also have turnouts for expansion into the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Harlem. Clearly, there is not enough money to build the whole SAS (is there ever?), but if the (MTA) one day finds itself able to expand the SAS out of Manhattan's East Side, it should be able to have "jump-off points" where it can do that. The 63rd Street tunnel already has two such points. One is in Queens where the (F) turns off to join the QBL and the other is at Second Avenue to allow for a Queens-Second Avenue service (which would be a very long-awaited replacement for the Second Avenue El service that ran via the 59th Street Bridge until 1942). But my point is, the SAS must be built with expansion to the rest of the City in mind. No one at the (MTA) has to know exactly what path the SAS will take when they build those turnouts, the point is to have them there so the line can be easily expanded.

 

The current SAS plan calls for a track from north of the 55th street station to join Queens Boulevard. It also has the line ending at 125th street, which does not rule out the possibility of service to the Bronx, to recapture what was lost when the Third Avenue El was torn down.

 

Additional service to Brooklyn is not possible given the constraints I listed above as it was be the most expensive, least useful, and most redundant connection to an outer boro possible from SAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many tracks the 125st station will have

I think it was planned to have 3 tracks, but phase 2 is a long way from now and anything can happen. I do hope they learned from capacity issues on the (E), (F), and (L) lines (maybe even the (7)) as a two-track terminal is not really able to sustain high throughput.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Times Sq end of the (7) was fine since the tail tracks extended well beyond the station allowing trains to enter at 'normal' speed. Technically if you have a long enough tail track, then a 2-track terminal is sufficient. It's the Flushing end that's now a bit worse despite being a 3-track terminal due to the fare collection area being placed right at the bumper blocks.

 

What the (L) really needs are tail tracks that extends all the way to or up to 9th av so the trains can pull into 8th Av like a normal station instead of crawling in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Times Sq end of the (7) was fine since the tail tracks extended well beyond the station allowing trains to enter at 'normal' speed. Technically if you have a long enough tail track, then a 2-track terminal is sufficient. It's the Flushing end that's now a bit worse despite being a 3-track terminal due to the fare collection area being placed right at the bumper blocks.

 

What the (L) really needs are tail tracks that extends all the way to or up to 9th av so the trains can pull into 8th Av like a normal station instead of crawling in.

At the Flushing end, I've been on an <7> that was behind another <7> waiting to pull into the terminal along with 3 other (7) on the local track. That's a parade of 5 trains waiting on a terminal with all 3 tracks filled. I guess it makes sense that extra tracks won't solve the terminal issues at all times, but I also think that the extra track keeps allows trains that need to access the terminal from being held up for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current SAS plan calls for a track from north of the 55th street station to join Queens Boulevard. It also has the line ending at 125th street, which does not rule out the possibility of service to the Bronx, to recapture what was lost when the Third Avenue El was torn down.

 

Additional service to Brooklyn is not possible given the constraints I listed above as it was be the most expensive, least useful, and most redundant connection to an outer boro possible from SAS.

Good to know. I agree that Brooklyn service would be redundant, especially in southern Brooklyn which is already well-served by various subway lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the SAS to Brooklyn would be redundant. I would guess that if the (T) were to run down via 4th Av, it would nearly mirror the (4)(5) lines and at least keep BMT riders from transfering to those lines if they needed to go to Midtown or the UES.

 

At the Flushing end, I've been on an <7> that was behind another <7> waiting to pull into the terminal along with 3 other (7) on the local track. That's a parade of 5 trains waiting on a terminal with all 3 tracks filled. I guess it makes sense that extra tracks won't solve the terminal issues at all times, but I also think that the extra track keeps allows trains that need to access the terminal from being held up for too long.

 

Yeah true, but I think if a train enters into a terminal at normal speeds, that would be more effective than having an extra set of tracks to platform at.

The faster a train enters, the faster it clears the switch to allow the other train to leave the station. That's why I'm hoping the Javits center station has long enough tail tracks. 3 tracks is nice, but won't do much if trains have to crawl to the bumpers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was one of the things put into the new Ferry. They couldnt put tail tracks beyond the station, so they instead had the switch further up the tunnel than whats standard for terminals. It allows trains to come into the Ferry faster than other terminals (and has since been retimed again), but there's nothing like coming into a terminal at 25 and making a normal station stop and dumping.

 

Flatbush is the worst when it comes to this, a sharp switch and a station that can barely hold the 10 cars.

 

Also of note is that the line is supposed to curve into the terminal based on 125th, which will slow things down similar to the way trains leave grand central going north (curve and the switch right there). Hopefully some storage tracks running due north on 2Av (for possible Bronx extension decades later when everyone reading this are long dead including me) are built in. It will be interesting if its more than 2 tracks how the setup will be. 96 will have some tail though since the line is going farther north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.